The US government says that Russia did not shoot down MH17, and that it doesn't know who did. Will this cause any of those who made virulent, personal comments against those of us who have been urging caution to change their choleric ways? I guess we'll see. But what now seems clear is that a lot less is clear than the blogosphere seems to believe.
The update includes information published in the Washington Post soon after this post was written.
A few days ago, when I posted a diary urging caution about reaching conclusions about the MH17 plane downing, I experienced the Daily Kos community at its worst. Rachel Maddow had done a segment in which she showed Russian media basically making stuff up, and followed it with a segment showing how much "information" that was floating around was unverified. The ironic message-between-the-lines of that setiup was lost on certain posters. As Maddow mentioned, some of that unverified information is coming from the Kiev intelligence and military, neither of which have very good track records on accuracy.
I pointed out that the kind of virulent hatred being spread, accusing the Ukrainian rebels and/or the Russians of being murderers was premature and could contribute to the revival of the Cold War. That would be far worse than the deaths of the MH17 passengers. In the Cold War, millions died, and we came all too close to killing billions during the Cuban Missile Crisis (and other miscalculations). Yes, there needs to be accountability. But it needs to be done rationally and methodically. There's a huge difference between, say, some drunken soldiers or soldiers accidentally firing a missile and a direct command from Vladimir Putin (or Petro Poroshenko) to fire on civilians.
In return, I was treated to neo-McCarthyite comments. Zentrails asked me if I worked for Russian Today. Laurence Lewis [corrected spelling of name and link; h/t Laurence Lewis]condemned me for passing "conspiracy theories" and said that "only kremlin apologists" would question the dominant media narrative. Aggieric said that my "delusion? propagandistic role? are not worth the effort of addressing."
These kind of accusations impugning patriotism were not limited to me. One of the best in this genre was directed at Russian-area expert Professor Stephen Cohen saying that he "may be related to Lazar Kaganovich, the Jewish brother-in-law of Stalin and the man in charge of orchestrating the Holodymyr, the famine that killed 7-10 million Ukrainians in 1932-33. He should be ridiculed, not given a voice to spread Putinist propaganda. He should be teaching at Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, not NYU." Let's call this what it is, namely neo-McCarthyism: the attempt to silence dissenting points of view because they do not satisfy some political orthodoxy.
I've elsewhere been accused of nursing a grudge for daring to point out that neo-McCarthyism is not reasonable debate, and that this community has been going downhill for a long term in terms of intolerance for different points of view. But the issues surrounding the conflict in the Ukraine are way, way too important to take this kind of stuff seriously.
You see, there seems to be a new development in this story. From the AP:
Senior U.S. intelligence officials ... offered no evidence of direct Russian government involvement [but blamed them for "creating the conditions", whatever that means].
The intelligence officials [said that] the U.S. had no direct evidence that the missile used to shoot down the passenger jet came from Russia [but, surprise, surprise, the Russians were arming the rebels].
...
...the officials said they did not know who fired the missile or whether any Russian operatives were present at the missile launch. They were not certain that the missile crew was trained in Russia,
...
The officials made clear they were relying in part on social media postings and videos made public in recent days by the Ukrainian government, even though they have not been able to authenticate all of it. For example, they cited a video of a missile launcher said to have been crossing the Russian border after the launch, appearing to be missing a missile.
But later, under questioning, the officials acknowledged they had not yet verified that the video was exactly what it purported to be.
Now, this is really amazing. The NSA can tap all our phones, but it doesn't have any satellite imagery or electronic communications from Ukraine? Robert Parry (who also got trashed in comments, even though he's one of a handful of reporters brave enough to go to a war zone and expose misdeeds by the Reagan Adminustration)
says
The dog-not-barking question on the catastrophe over Ukraine is: what did the U.S. surveillance satellite imagery show? It’s hard to believe that – with the attention that U.S. intelligence has concentrated on eastern Ukraine for the past half year that the alleged trucking of several large Buk anti-aircraft missile systems from Russia to Ukraine and then back to Russia didn’t show up somewhere.
Russian-made Buk anti-missile battery.
Yes, there are limitations to what U.S. spy satellites can see. But the Buk missiles are about 16 feet long and they are usually mounted on trucks or tanks. Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 also went down during the afternoon, not at night, meaning the missile battery was not concealed by darkness.
So why hasn’t this question of U.S. spy-in-the-sky photos – and what they reveal – been pressed by the major U.S. news media?
...
What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.
The source said CIA analysts were still not ruling out the possibility that the troops were actually eastern Ukrainian rebels in similar uniforms but the initial assessment was that the troops were Ukrainian soldiers. There also was the suggestion that the soldiers involved were undisciplined and possibly drunk, since the imagery showed what looked like beer bottles scattered around the site, the source said. [emphasis added]
He also
points out where all these unverified reports are coming from:
In recognition of the key role played by the neo-Nazis, who are ideological descendants of Ukrainian militias that collaborated with the Nazi SS in World War II, the new regime gave these far-right nationalists control of several ministries, including the office of national security which is under the command of longtime neo-Nazi activist Andriy Parubiy
...
It was this same Parubiy whom the Post writers turned to seeking more information condemning the eastern Ukrainian rebels and the Russians regarding the Malaysia Airlines catastrophe. Parubiy accused the rebels in the vicinity of the crash site of destroying evidence and conducting a cover-up, another theme that resonated through the MSM.
Without bothering to inform readers of Parubiy’s unsavory neo-Nazi background, the Post quoted him as a reliable witness declaring: “It will be hard to conduct a full investigation with some of the objects being taken away, but we will do our best.”
In contrast to Parubiy’s assurances, the Kiev regime actually has a terrible record of telling the truth or pursuing serious investigations of human rights crime
Now, let's be clear, since some people are slow in understanding:
[list renumbered. h/t bluezen]
1. The Ukrainian rebels
could have shot down MH17. They
might> even have done it deliberately. Or the Russians could have done it. Or the Ukrainian army. Or anyone the Russians sold the missile to. Assuming it was an SA-11 (Buk) missile.
2. Ukrainian intelligence reports could be accurate. Their accuracy is not determined by the character or lack thereof of individuals in Ukrainian intelligence (their plausibility is). But many if not most are unverified. And they are certainly motivated to implicate the rebels. We need to go case by case, carefully, to figure out which of the evidence, if any, is reliable.
3. Vladimir Putin is not a nice man. Anyone heard of Anna Politkovskaya? I've been following Putin's career since then, and--contrary to some wild accusations-- have no illusions.
4. It was wrong of the rebels to in any way block access to the crash site or hang onto the black boxes. But it is highly unlikely that anything that they could do would fundamentally alter the conclusions of the investigators. Unless they happen to find shrapnel with a serial number, we won't really know who fired it. Based on propellant analysis, they might be able to narrow down the model of missile. But getting at the truth will be little hindered by their misguided actions.
5. Parry's report is just that: a report. Many news reports turn out to be wrong. But notice how his report meshes pretty well with what AP is reporting. And his question that we should be demanding US satellite images and electronic intercepts is spot on.
6. Who knows? Maybe AP's report will prove to be wrong. Maybe the US government is just waiting for the proper moment to release the evidence proving [added: their case]
7. Just to be crystal clear, it is not ok for the Ukrainian rebels (or whoever) to shoot down a civilian airliner just because the US once did so. But it should help us to understand that genuine accidents can occur in war zones. If you say that there are no mitigating circumstances for the Ukrainian rebels, then you in effect accuse the crew of the USS Vincennes of committing mass murder. Anything else is hypocrisy.
In the end, I don't know who will be proven to be responsible. And by posting this, I am not gloating or hoping for an apology. What I really do hope is that Kossacks will start to approach incendiary political issues with the discernment they require. Careful concern for the integrity of facts, careful reasoning, and a willingness to tolerate--and learn from--different points of view-- are what a truly free people need to do. Otherwise, they become the pawns of demagogues and political opportunists. I expect people here to differ with me, vigorously. But please have due respect for the process of finding the truth, which takes time and a willingness to see the merits in what one's opponent says.
_______
Update: The Administration has released a few details of its case. Specifically, they show photos of a truck that resembles a missile launcher traveling in places they name (Torez and Snizhne). These were gleaned from social media--but now, apparently, the Administration has--sort of--put its weight behind them. They also show satellite photos of a buildup at a base near Rostov. However, amazingly, they continue to refuse to go on record. Miller's article is a textbook case of stenography, since sources are not named: "The Obama administration", "officials", "Senior U.S. intelligence officials". There are no named sources. There's also one really dubious claim:
Russia has gone to significant lengths to disguise that flow of weaponry, the officials said, by delivering equipment that matches the inventory of Ukraine’s military. In some cases, the officials said, Russia appears to have pulled aging and inactive tanks out of storage because shipping newer ones would make it obvious that Russian arms were flowing into Ukraine.
Or, uh, maybe because they didn't want to give their new toys to a ragtag group of rebels?
People who want to argue about the significance of the rebels holding onto the black boxes can consult here. Basically the black boxes can't provide much more than we already have, except perhaps for more precise positional data and confirmation (unnecessary, since other evidence should provide this) that the plane was brought down by a missile. And, yes, they could have tampered with the data. Except that they don't know what the US has, and so that would be really, really stupid. Doesn't mean they wouldn't try.
There are reports of what could be a serious escalation in the conflict. David Herszenhorn and Andrew Higgins report that the Ukrainian government says that two of its jets have been shot down, though how is not specified. If the Russians have decided to increase re-supply the rebels, that would move the conflict a step from civil war toward regional war.